Content
42%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a self-declared 'legacy template awaiting research upgrade' whose content is almost entirely meta-status and research hygiene rather than usable mathematical-logic guidance. It is brief and loosely sequenced but lacks concrete actions, and every referenced module file is missing from the bundle.
Suggestions
Provide the referenced module files (modules/research-checklist.md, modules/known-gaps.md, modules/core-guidance.md, _toc.md) or remove the broken links, since progressive disclosure currently points to non-existent content.
Replace vague procedural hints with concrete, executable guidance — e.g. specific proof-translation steps, named tools/commands, or worked examples of model-theoretic or computability tasks.
Move time-sensitive dates (2025-11-08) into a clearly labeled 'Last validated' or 'Deprecated' subsection so they do not penalize the main content's conciseness, and add an explicit validation/verification checkpoint to the workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and does not over-explain concepts Claude already knows, but it carries time-sensitive metadata ("Last validated: 2025-11-08", "conversion captured on 2025-11-08") outside any deprecated/old-patterns section, which the rubric says should penalize conciseness; this fits score 3 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than score 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps are high-level hints ("capture up-to-date sources", "resolve outstanding items", "update metadata") with no concrete code, commands, or examples, matching score 2 'Minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'; it is above score 1 only because a numbered procedure exists. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A 4-step sequence is present with an implicit checkpoint ("only after verification"), but there are no explicit validation steps or feedback loops, fitting score 3 'Steps listed but validation gaps; sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'; it is not score 4 because no concrete validation commands are given. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is structured as an overview with one-level-deep module references (research-checklist, known-gaps, core-guidance, _toc) in a dedicated 'Module overview' section, but none of those files exist in the bundle, so the navigation is broken; this lands at score 3 rather than 4 because the clearly-signaled references do not resolve to real content. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 11 / 20 Passed |